Christian groups are trying to create a run around health care reform by setting up alternative, unregulated religious health care bill collectives-and movement conservatives are cheering them on.
Religious right-watcher Sarah Posner reports on so-called Christian health care-sharing ministries in the American Prospect. Health-sharing ministries (HCSM) bill themselves as godly alternatives to health insurance. HCSM are groups of Christians who promise to cover each other's heath care costs. About a hundred thousand people nationwide belong to these collectives. The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries and its army of lobbyists convinced Senate lawmakers to exempt HCSMs from health care reform's individual mandate.
Obliterating patient privacy
According to Posner, anti-reform conservatives are talking up these groups because they see them as a way to undermine the individual mandate. But if you think HCSM are a convenient loophole to avoid paying for insurance, think again. Posner describes the criteria for joining Samaritan Ministries International (SMI), one of the largest HCSM:
"To join the HCSM, applicants must agree to a statement of faith that they are a 'professing Christian, according to biblical principles' set out in Romans 10:9-10 and John 3:3. They must agree to adhere to guidelines that include no sex outside of "traditional Biblical marriage," no smoking or drugs, and mandatory church attendance.
SMI members pay their own health care costs out of pocket and seek reimbursement from the group. What about privacy? In order to get reimbursed, they have to publish their health care "needs" in a monthly newsletter and hope someone sends cash. Lifetime benefits are capped at $100,000. Members waive their right to sue for any reason. SMI won't cover treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, addictions, or the pregnancies of single mothers.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this free-for-all won't end well. You can't just start a quasi-health insurance scheme in your garden shed and expect it to work out. Real insurance companies are subject to oversight to make sure that they have enough money on hand to cover their claims. Who knows what HSCM are doing with people's money? These outfits have all the disadvantages of private insurers and none of the benefits. Members are a single major illness away from bankruptcy.
Bartering for health care?
Speaking of wacky alternatives to health insurance, Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) main Republican challenger, Sue Lowden, insists that patients can pay for their health care via a barter system, as Rachel Slajda reports for TPMDC. Great! How many chickens for an appendectomy?
Medicare expansion doesn't equal bankruptcy
At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum debunks the latest right-wing myth about health care reform, that Medicare expansion will bankrupt the states. States pay part of the cost of Medicare, so it's true that any expansion of the program will cost the states some money. However, the talking point is that the expansion will push state budgets to the breaking point. That's false.
Drum explains that the health care reform bill exempts states from the extra cost until 2016. Even after that, the costs to the states will be minimal:
"[Health care reform] won't cost states an extra dime through 2016, by which time our recession will presumably be over, and even after that states will only pay for a tiny fraction of the increased costs. As CBPP points out, states will pay about 4% of the total costs of Medicaid expansion over the next ten years. This represents an increase in overall state Medicaid spending of slightly over 1%."
Abortion and 'convenience'
Jessica Valenti of Feministing has been taking on manipulative, anti-choice ads in the New York City subway. These ads are sponsored by an anti-abortion group. They feature various distraught-looking models staring wistfully into space. The tagline is "Abortion Changes You." The message is that if you have an abortion, you will be a guilt-racked wreck for the rest of your life. Some feminist with a wry sense of humor and a little glue pasted in another sentence on the ad (pictured above): "Now I can go to college and fulfill my dreams."
Anti-choice blogger Lori Ziganto was scandalized by the anonymous culture jammer's message. She sneered at the idea that women's lives and hopes actually matter: "Want to go to college, but there is a pesky baby growing inside of you? Abort! A life is far less important than your co-ed fun and career plans, right?"
Valenti's response: "It isn't that anti-choicers don't understand why women get abortions - it's that they care so little about women's lives that any reason given to obtain an abortion is seen as "convenient." Some things that are convenient: Providing for your existing children. Going to college. Having enough money to eat, pay rent, keep the electricity on. Not dying."
HSCMs and the subway ads are part of an enormous rift in contemporary politics: Opponents of health care reform say that they're defending freedom, but in reality, they're advocating control.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
So Dante wasn't actually thinking of the current state of Dem-controlled politics in the Federal elected branches? Ha!
Every limb of the Dem body politic that has not already dropped off is gangrenous: an excellent working hypothesis.
As witness...
Back in Paleolithic times (2005 to be precise), lefties interested in legislative process were edified by the sterling efforts of Dem MCs to ensure that a pretty odious piece of banker-rimming legislation was delivered to Bush's desk: the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, aka S 256 (109th).
More naive and sensitive lefty souls were shocked (and not in the Captain Renault sense) that the bill should have passed the Senate 74-25 (that's the passage vote - cloture not required!) and the House 302-126.
Skipping ahead to the 111th, one New Millenium later, we find that the frisky Dem trifecta gets down to purging its Bush-enabling soul with a consumer protection act that actually protected one or two consumers: the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.
This first passed the House on March 5 as HR 1106, and included a cramdown provision. which would have given bankruptcy judges flexibility in dealing with delinquent mortgages.
HR 1106 passed 234-191, with 24 Dems voting against and 7 GOP for.
The base text of the corresponding Senate bill, S 896, did not include a cramdown provision; Durbin put forward an amendment (SA 1014), which was dealt with under a 60 vote-vote UCA (like HR 3590, the health care bill).
However, opponents of the amendment didn't need the 60 vote threshold to kill it: on April 30, it failed by 45-51. There were 12 Dems voting against:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Also on April 30, the Washington Independentsuggested that the WH had deliberately gone silent on the issue to ensure the Durbin Amendment died - this piece suggests the WH intervened in January to get Pelosi to drop cramdown from HR 1106, and that this was down. How it came to be part of the bill as passed, I haven't looked at.
(Various pieces: this highlights the role of CUNA, the credit union lobby, in keeping cramdown out of S 896; this figures an insurance angle which makes cramdown problematic; Waldman's pieces on cramdown; coupla HuffPo pieces here and here. Technical aspects of cramdown from the bankers' angle, and this piece as well as this piece with biases unexamined by me; also Wikipedia. March piece from Bloomberg.)
Coming more or less up to date, there's been another try at cramdown - this time, the Marshall Amendment to the financial services bill HR. 4173.
Clearly something's gone on for an extra 47 Dems to turn to the Dark Side this year; who were the switchers? no time to spreadsheet now, but an interesting question.
Now, when it comes to ideology, bankruptcy protection for homeowners isn't exactly at the Marxist end of the spectrum: it's firmly in the New Deal mold.
And what precisely did Obama say about cramdown in the campaign? Dunno, but, again an interesting question for when time permits.
Two days ago, I wrote that I did not trust the Obama administration when it comes to applying political pressure on conservative Democrats in order to pass some of the more progressive elements of the Democratic agenda. The specific examples I used were card-check and cramdown, on which I believe the administration offered token vocal support but did not take serious (or at least effective) efforts to advance.
In response, Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday that I wasn't using common sense, which would show that the Obama administration is passing the most progressive legislation that is possible to pass:
For a bill to pass the House of Representatives, it needs a majority. According to DW-NOMINATE score, the median member of the House of Representatives is currently Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota. The median member of the United States Senate is Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The pivotal sixtieth Senator required to break a filibuster is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it's possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.
That is a very nice generalization about the political situation, but it breaks down when you look at the specific fights I cited as my examples: card-check and cramdown. In particular, the card-check fight is case where the administration completely failed to apply necessary pressure to pass what was a very winnable fight.
In the 110th Congress, 52 Senators supported cramdown, eight away from passage. On June 26th, 2007, 51 Senators voted in favor of invoking cloture on a version of the Employee Free Choice Act that included card-check. One Senator, Tim Johnson, was supportive but too ill to attend the vote.
With 8 votes needed to reach 60 in the Senate, and with all major Democratic challengers for Senate stating their support for the Employee Free Choice Act with card-check, the target in 2008 was to net Democrats 8 Senate pickups. Rather than lacking common sense about the need for 60 votes, as Yglesias accuses me, I mentioned this target repeatedly during my 2008 Senate forecasts, as a running whip count on card check. In the end, Democrats netted exactly 8 seats--enough for passage.
A couple of months after card-check had been defeated, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was quoted calling pressure from progressive groups against conservative Democrats, including labor, "f*cking stupid."
To recap: we had 60 votes for card-check, we lost six of those votes under the Obama administration's watch, and then the White House chief of Staff called attempts to apply political pressure on wayward Democrats "f*cking stupid."
So please, tell me again why I should believe the Obama administration is doing everything it can to pass things like card-check, and how I lack common sense about how 60 votes are needed to pass the Senate. We had the votes, the votes were lost under the Obama administration, and then the Obama administration protected the Democrats who defected.
The U.S. job market may be showing signs of life, according to a report issued by the Labor Department on Friday. The unemployment rate dropped in July, something no economist expected. Under the most optimistic interpretation, the news indicates that the worst of the recession is finally behind us. But the scenario isn't really so rosy, as our government has yet to relieve the foreclosure pandemic. Even if unemployment is leveling off, there will be no economic recovery if the the foreclosure problem isn't fixed.
July's unemployment rate only fell from 9.5% to 9.4%, and even the most bullish Wall Street economists think the rate will hit double digits by the end of the year. The fact that July's tiny drop in unemployement counts for good economic news says a lot about how severely the economy has deteriorated over the past year and a half.
But when you dig a little deeper, the numbers get worse. As Tim Fernholz explains for The American Prospect, even though the unemployment rate dropped, the nation's economy actually shed 247,000 jobs in July. The rate was pushed down because 400,000 people gave up looking for a job in July; as such, they are no longer included in the statistic. So, while we "only" lost 247,000 jobs, we also lost 400,000 workers.
The government also adjusts its job loss figures for seasonal developments. When the Labor Department says we lost 247,000 jobs in July, that isn't the actual number-it's the number relative to what the Department considers a normal July. This summer has been unique for the U.S. economy, and especially in the case of the automobile industry. Auto companies usually lay off workers in the summer: The factories close while companies prepare the next year's models. So many factories were already closed earlier this year that the seasonal shutdowns haven't really happened this summer. Even though car companies laid people off in July, the government's seasonally adjusted numbers marked an increase in car manufacturing jobs.
Things get even more complicated when you include the Cash for Clunkers program, which started on July 24. The plan offers people up to $4,500 to trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient new car. Whether the program helps the environment is somewhat controversial, but there is no doubt that it has created a lot of unusual demand for new cars. As Ed Brayton notes for The Michigan Messenger, the government's plan to pump an additional $2 billion into the program has analysts predicting a big boost for manufacturers in July and August.
So we don't really know if the labor market actually improved last month, or if the report is just an exaggeration of statistical anomalies resulting from the recession itself, or even some of the government's recovery efforts. But as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, even if the numbers come with a healthy dose of uncertainty, it's still better to see them come in good than bad. "There hasn't been encouraging news on the job front in quite a while, and given the severity of the economic crisis, today's report offers at least some relief," Benen says. "The job numbers beat expectations, the overall unemployment rate declined, earnings went up, and the manufacturing sector improved."
But even if unemployment is finally slowing down, the housing market remains awful. Foreclosures are significantly outpacing the administration's efforts to help troubled borrowers. The Treasury Department released a report last week indicating that only about 9% of the borrowers eligible for relief under the government's anti-foreclosure plan have actually received any aid-and even here the numbers are juiced to make the program look better. The administration only includes borrowers who are already at least two months behind on their mortgage payments in the group of eligible borrowers, when in fact any borrower in danger of "imminent default" is supposed to be eligible. Much of the problem, as I argue in a piece for Salon, is that the plan relies on private-sector debt collectors to identify distressed homeowners and get them help, something these companies have never been very interested in doing. All in all, just 235,247 borrowers have received assistance under the Obama plan, while foreclosures increased to 1.5 million in the first six months of 2009, with 2.4 million expected for the entire year and 9 million by 2012.
Writing for Mother Jones, Andy Kroll emphasizes that a much better policy option is available than the current tack. Rather than ask the banking industry to voluntarily adopt the administration's plan without any consequences, we should put "homeowners' fate in the hands of a neutral arbiter, like a bankruptcy court judge . . . [It] would go a long way toward stemming the tide of foreclosures," Kroll writes.
Thanks to a bizarre legal loophole, mortgages cannot be modified in a bankruptcy proceeding if the owner actually lives in the house (investment properties, on the other hand, can be written off). In other words, if a predatory loan is driving you bankrupt, a judge can't do anything about it in bankruptcy court. Congress has tried to change this rule a few times over the past year, but the bank lobby has stymied those efforts. The most recent legislative push failed overcome a Senate filibuster in April, but the political momentum may be changing as foreclosures get increasingly out of hand.
As Mike Lillis notes for The Colorado Independent, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., plans to bring back the legislation if the banking industry doesn't get serious about helping borrowers fast. Many of the companies letting borrowers fall into foreclosure received billions of dollars in bailout money over the past year, and some even agreed to help borrowers as a condition for taxpayer support. But reform doesn't just depend on the banks. Peter Dreier argues in The Nation that citizens need to publicly protest for stronger economic reforms.
Foreclosures are terrible for the economy. They wreak havoc on families' lives, wipe out personal savings, lower the value of neighboring properties and put more homes on the market, further lowering home prices nationwide. If we cannot stop foreclosures, the economy cannot recover. If job losses are finally moderating, that's great news. But it would be much better to see job losses stabilize and see the banks we bailed out actually do something to avert foreclosures.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
Now that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner isn't going to impose pay restrictions on bailed out Wall Street executives, it's critical to remember that severe economic inequality was a major factor in the financial meltdown. Our tax code funnels money into the hands of our wealthiest citizens, which means that our financial system protects the interests of the affluent—not the the average citizen. The broad divergence between our core democratic values and the existing U.S. economic structure must become part of the public debate over financial reform.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
It's official: The U.S. economy has been in a recession for a year and a half and many of the economic troubles worrying progressives in 2007 have yet to be addressed. While the Obama administration has taken steps to relieve some problems, a series of counterproductive bailouts, woefully inadequate labor laws and rampant inequality are still in urgent need of attention.
Over at Huffington Post, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom I work with in advancing public funding of congressional elections) gives people something constuctive to do with the anger over last week's bankruptcy vote:
If you think special-interest influence in Congress perverts our public policy, last week saw an outrage that vindicates that belief entirely.
Sen. Dick Durbin offered a bill that would allow families at risk of losing their homes -- but with an ability to pay their mortgage if their monthly rates were lower and extended over more years -- to legally get that option.
The very banks that taxpayers kept alive with billions in bailouts had the audacity to spend millions lobbying Congress to oppose this bill. They also showered politicians with campaign contributions.
The bill was defeated. Senator Durbin declared that banks "frankly own the place." Will you continue to support politicians who support this corrupt system? Or will you demand that any politician you donate to support reform?
Thousands of people are telling members of Congress they won't get a dime from us unless they co-sponsor Senator Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act to overhaul congressional campaign financing. It would replace our broken system with citizen-funded elections, a hybrid of public funding and small-dollar donations.
Already, our strike has withheld over $1.25 million from politicians (based on contributions last cycle). It's also been featured by ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Politico, Huffington Post, and others.
Now is the time to send politicians a message that we absolutely demand they change the system.
I sense that a lot of people are sick of just venting. And are sick of the current system. Wanted to make sure you saw there is a campaign you can tap into to fix it.
Specter's post-switch voting record is now a perfect demonstration of why having 60 Democratic Senators is not, and never was, a magic number for Democrats. In June, when Al Franken is seated, there won't be a single piece of legislation that has been defeated so far in the 111th Congress (cramdown, EFCA, 100% cap and trade) but will pass when Democrats have 60 Senators. Not a single one.
We will shortly reach 60 votes in the Senate, but the more progressive aspects of the Democratic legislative agenda will still be stalled. This means we have officially reached the era where "more Democrats" is completely irrelevant to the progressive cause. From now on, all progressive electoral activity must be targeted in support of candidates who will add, or maintain, progressive votes on key pieces of legislation like cramdown, the Employee Free Choice Act, and putting a price on all carbon usage rather than just some carbon usage.
The "D" next to a the name of a Senate candidate or incumbent has become irrelevant. Now we need letters list "B" for bankruptcy reform, "C" for putting a price on all carbon, and "E" for EFCA. No matter what party a with which candidate identifies, Senate campaigns are now only relevant to progressives in terms of which pieces of defeated legislation their election or re-election will assist. And that's it.
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
Progressive media is sounding the alarm on the AIG bonus scandal, demanding that policymakers stop repeating Bush administration mistakes and offering concrete solutions to the dire economic situation those missteps have created.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich describes the bonus insanity in a blog distributed by AlterNet. "Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid," Reich writes, noting that institutions like AIG "are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market." If AIG is not accountable to the Treasury Secretary of the country that owns an 80% stake in AIG, then the company has unlimited access to taxpayer coffers without being accountable to anyone at all.
Republicans hammered Barack Obama over his connection to ACORN during last year's election, but now ACORN is taking a swing at some Democrats - with the help of liberal activists at MoveOn.org.
The role reversal arises out of the groups' anger at moderate House Democrats who opposed a housing bill that has more generous bankruptcy rules for people facing foreclosure.
Next week this coalition will begin airing TV ads criticizing House Democrats who voted against the measure, which would for the first time give judges the authority to restructure home mortgages - a procedure known as a cramdown.
Hmmm... where did I hear about this before? Oh yeah:
An Ad To Run Against Dems Who Vote Against Cramdown
In every case, a "Y" refers to the vote that gave money to Wall Street, and a "N" refers to a vote against giving Wall Street money. ("A" refers to not voting.)
Totally for Wall Street, no for Homeonwers Rick Boucher: Y, Y, A
Chet Edwards: Y, Y, Y
Bart Gordon: Y, Y, Y
Consistent: Bobby Bright: N
Chris Carney: N, N, N
Travis Childers: N, N, N
Kathy Dahlkemper: N
Lincoln Davis: N, N, N
Parker Griffith: N
Baron Hill: N, N, N
Tim Holden: N, N, N
Larry Kissell: N
Frank Kratovil: N
Betsy Markey N
Eric Massa: N (what the fuck Massa?) Jim Matheson: N, N, N
Bart Stupak: N, N, N
Gene Taylor: N, N, N
Harry Teague N
Given that they represent blue districts, if either Ron Kind or Mike Arcuri was to vote against President Obama's budget, it should be open season on both of them in their 2010 primaries. To vote to hand hundreds of billions over to Wall Street, but then to oppose even a New Democrat approved housing bill and oppose President Obama's budget--at that point, you simply don't deserve to be a Democratic nominee for Congress anymore.
Ron Kind in particular needs to go, as he was a pro-FISA rewrite, pro-Iraq blank check Bush Dog on top of all this. As such, I don't even really care how Ron Kind votes on the budget--he has crossed the line way too many times for an Obama 58% district. Let's get a primary challenger on him now. Even with Wisconsin's open primary laws, that is an exceptionally winnable primary campaign.
Here is a message I received today from Ellen Tauscher's office. The asterisks are mine:
Hi Chris,
There's been much written about HR 1106, especially in the blogosphere, and most of it is misinformed.
Congresswoman Tauscher has worked hard during the past few weeks to improve HR 1106 by making it more progressive*, more comprehensive and more effective. Bankruptcy is not a solution to the enormous foreclosure crisis. Congresswoman Tauscher has worked with Speaker Pelosi** and Rep. Zoe Lofgren to include a central tenet of President Obama's housing plan - a loan modification program - in the bill. They agreed.
Instead of passing legislation that would help 30,000 homeowners file for bankruptcy, Congresswoman Tauscher wants a real, accessible loan modification plan in place so that millions of homeowners can work with lenders to rewrite their mortgage payments without declaring bankruptcy, which is ruinous and painful. Earlier this morning, she was on the phone with a few lawmakers who had opposed the rule to HR 1106 to persuade them to support the rule when it comes to a vote on Wednesday.***
She is not taking directions from "the banks"; she has not even met with them.****
It's disappointing to work with so many bloggers who count themselves as progressives, but won't listen when a pragmatic progressive is trying to improve legislation. In the end, it doesn't matter. Congresswoman Tauscher's constituents enjoy her pragmatic style and the results she has delivered in seven terms in Congress; they appreciate what she's doing here.
You're picking the wrong fight with the wrong woman.*****
OK. Explanation of the asterisks in the extended entry.
As Jane Hamsher and Kagro X have already noted, a deal on "cramdown" bankruptcy legislation appears to have been forged. And I am happy to report that, rather than the fake compromises of the last eight years where Democrats and / or progressives get next to nothing while Republicans and / or conservatives get 95% of what they want, this deal seems to be a true compromise where both sides can legitimately claim victory. From CQ:
House Democratic leaders reached an agreement Tuesday on a compromise version of the "cramdown" provision in broad mortgage legislation that is expected to be on the floor this week.
The controversial provision would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages on the primary residences of homeowners who are in jeopardy of foreclosure, but only as a last resort.(...)
In negotiations that picked up steam Monday and continued throughout much of the day Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., met with representatives of the business-oriented New Democrat Coalition and Senate staff to hash out a deal that would allow a bankruptcy judge to cut the principal on a homeowner's mortgage, lower the interest rate and extend the duration.(...)
Among the changes is a requirement that a homeowner seeking protection in bankruptcy court must convince the judge he or she has made sufficient efforts to complete a loan modification through the Obama administration's voluntary refinancing program. Judges would also be required to consider interest rate reductions lowering the monthly mortgage payment to no more than 31 percent of the borrower's income before considering a principal reduction.
STATE BLOGS
